Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SUSAN GO v. FERNANDO L. DIMAGIBA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 151085 2008-08-20	JOEMAR ORTEGA v. PEOPLE NACHURA, J.
We also have extant jurisprudence that the principle has been given expanded application in certain instances involving special laws. [54] R.A. No. 9344 should be no exception.
	GR NO. 168728 2007-08-02	SAMUEL BARREDO Y GOLANI v. VICENTE VINARAO CORONA, J.
The writ of habeas corpus applies to all cases of illegal confinement, detention or deprivation of liberty.[9] It was devised as a speedy and effective remedy to relieve persons from unlawful restraint.[10] More specifically, it is a remedy to obtain immediate relief for those who may have been illegally confined or imprisoned without sufficient cause and thus deliver them from unlawful custody.[11] It is therefore a writ of inquiry intended to test the circumstances under which a person is detained.[12]
	GR NO. 144054 2006-06-30	NIEVES A. SAGUIGUIT v. PEOPLE GARCIA, J.
Thus, Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 establishes a rule of preference in the application of the penal provisions of B.P. Blg. 22 such that where the circumstances of both the offense and the offender clearly indicate good faith or a clear mistake of fact without taint of negligence, the imposition of a fine alone should be considered as the more appropriate penalty. Needless to say, the determination of whether the circumstances warrant the imposition of a fine alone rests solely upon the Judge. [15] Should the Judge decide that imprisonment is the more appropriate penalty, Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 ought not be deemed a hindrance. [16]
	GR NO. 144054 2006-06-30	NIEVES A. SAGUIGUIT v. PEOPLE GARCIA, J.
The Judges concerned may, in the exercise of sound discretion, and taking into consideration the peculiar circumstances of each case, determine whether the imposition of a fine alone would best serve the interests of justice or whether forbearing to impose imprisonment would depreciate the seriousness of the offense, work violence on the social order, or otherwise be contrary to the imperatives of justice; [17]
	GR NO. 143721 2005-08-31	TERESITA E. VILLALUZ v. ROLANDO R. LIGON AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As we explained in Go vs. Dimagiba[35] civil liability differs from criminal liability. What is punished in the latter is not the failure to pay an obligation but the issuance of checks that subsequently bounced or were dishonored for insufficiency or lack of funds. The issuance of worthless checks is prohibited because of its deleterious effects on public interest and its effects transcend the private interest of the parties directly involved in the transaction and touches the interest of the community at large.[36] In the present civil case, no such transcendental public interest exists.